Also Read - Kerala High Court Urges Amendment to Divorce Act, 1869 to Allow Christian Women to File Divorce Petitions at Place of Residence

Despite that direction, the petitioner informed the court that the police had not reinstated any special security detail, maintaining that there was no necessity for such measures. The police submitted a threat assessment report from various intelligence agencies which concluded that Shanmugam was not facing any imminent danger to his life, except for the unresolved murder case stemming from the 2006 attack.

The petitioner further stated that, since 2006, he had lodged twenty complaints with the police alleging various forms of intimidation and harassment. While some of those complaints led to the registration of FIRs, others were closed after a detailed enquiry. The court examined the documents and found that the complaints pertained to different sets of allegations, which, according to the bench, precluded the possibility of transferring the investigation of those cases to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Also Read - Andhra Pradesh High Court Half Yearly Digest January‑June 2026

On the question of transferring the investigation to the CBI, the court observed that the varied nature of the allegations made such a transfer untenable. Nevertheless, the bench emphasized that the continuous life threat faced by the petitioner could not be ignored.

Taking into account the petitioner’s assertions, the history of violence, the pending murder trial, and the pattern of complaints, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan concluded that there was sufficient ground to intervene. The court held that the petitioner had demonstrated a prima facie case for the protection of his life and limb.

Also Read - HP High Court Orders Transfer of Kullu Officials and SIT Probe into Kasol Rave Parties

Accordingly, the court directed the second respondent, the Director General of Police, to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner forthwith, including the provision of necessary weapons. The order is to be implemented immediately.

The appearance of counsel was noted as Mrs P Karthika Kamal representing the petitioner, Mr E Balamurugan, while the respondents were represented by Mr Arun Anbumani, Government Advocate (Criminal Side), and Mr K Srinivasan, Special Public Prosecutor (CBI).

Also Read - Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Supplier and Medical Representative in Coldriff Cough Syrup Case

The decision underscores the court’s willingness to intervene when a public representative alleges sustained threats, even when administrative agencies contend that no imminent danger exists. It also highlights the procedural limits on transferring investigations to central agencies when the complaints involve disparate allegations.